Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

itwbennett writes "Your employer won't like it, but they can't stop you from discussing working conditions and compensation with your coworkers on social media. In his most recent social media memo, National Labor Relations Board General Counsel Lafe Solomon said that in 6 of the 7 employers' social media policies he reviewed, he found violations of Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, which allows employees to join labor unions and to discuss working conditions with each other."

But still, some things are a matter of good taste. Sure, you can do it on your own time, but I know I wouldn't want to know what my co-workers make. Not that I think I'm under paid or anything, but it's information that simply doesn't affect me. How is discussing it with anyone going to help me?

When person X find out person Y makes 10K more / year then them, for "the same job", they will want that 10K more as well - even if they do not deserve it, either because they do not have the same level of experience or because they simply are not a good performer in their job.

No. The problem happens when the less experienced person managed to sell himself as worth MORE than the more experienced person.

Companies need to focus more on what skills are needed at what levels and how to test those skills.

Why would you have a problem with someone at a higher grade making more than you if you know what skills you'll need to work on to get to that grade?

If that's your choice, then by all means, do it. However, in that situation, it's YOU choosing not to take part in the disclosure. In the situation in the article, it was the EMPLOYER forcing their will on you, and robbing you of that choice. Completely different situation.

It should bother you, as it's completely unethical (and hopefully illegal, but obviously that depends on laws where you live) to put such a stipulation in and reflects extremely poorly on the character of those in charge at your employer. If you choose not to share your wages/salary with anyone else, that is your prerogative. Your employer still has no right to demand that you not share that information.

It should bother you, as it's completely unethical (and hopefully illegal, but obviously that depends on laws where you live) to put such a stipulation in

There's nothing unethical about that at all. A contract is a two way agreement. They have to agree and so do I. So long as both parties agree, what's the issue?

and reflects extremely poorly on the character of those in charge at your employer. If you choose not to share your wages/salary with anyone else, that is your prerogative. Your employer still has no right to demand that you not share that information.

They are not my employer, they are my client. And they didn't demand, they negotiated.

There's nothing unethical about that at all. A contract is a two way agreement. They have to agree and so do I. So long as both parties agree, what's the issue?

The issue is that it is an attempt to control the flow of information so that they can treat people unfairly. The only reason you would ever need such a provision is if you were already or were planning to pay people below their value, and wanted to keep them from finding out. So at best, it's an unnecessary provision. More likely, it is there to enable unfair treatment and is unethical.

Furthermore, when one party has almost all the bargaining power (as is the case in most employment agreements), they can a

There's nothing unethical about that at all. A contract is a two way agreement. They have to agree and so do I. So long as both parties agree, what's the issue?

The issue is that it is an attempt to control the flow of information so that they can treat people unfairly. The only reason you would ever need such a provision is if you were already or were planning to pay people below their value, and wanted to keep them from finding out.

Or you were wanting to pay someone above their value.

Just because one person is paid more than another doesn't mean anyone is being paid below their value. In the interests of harmony it's sometimes best for those being paid less not to find out what those being paid more are paid.

If those being paid less are not happy with their pay, then they should say something about it. At the end of the day what matters is whether you're happy with what you're getting and whether you came to a mutual agreement with yo

To negotiate you need to know what other vendors of you client (and employees of the client) are making. It is always in your favor to be able to have an open discussion about these, without worrying about what you are legally allowed to discuss about. The same applies to employees the TFA talks about, it is good to be allowed to talk about your pay to some coworker you trust. The more you know, the more leverage you have.

Exactly. If you talk to the other contractors, you may find out that they're paying you way less than another contractor and then you know that you can renegotiate when the contract expires and likely get a better rate.

To negotiate you need to know what other vendors of you client (and employees of the client) are making.

What you need to know if what you personally are willing to work for. That's what matters ina negotiation. If you get something you are happy with then there is no issue, regardless of how little or how much someone else gets.

I would normally be content with 150K for a senior programmer position in the bay area. But would I be happier with 1 million per year? Yes. But would I quote 1 million because I would be happier. No. I would quote what the market accepts. How would I know what the market accepts? I would look at what my peers are making, and set a negotiating price based on it. This has nothing do with happiness and all to do with what the market accepts. To know what the market accept, peers should be able to talk to each

To negotiate you need to know what other vendors of you[r] client... are making.

I don't think so. A negotiation of pay for services involves only the final drop-dead figure for what you are willing to work for, and the final drop-dead figure for what the client is willing to pay. The only basis for an agreement is that your figure is lower than his figure, and there is someplace between the two that you can agree on. It's a difficult and nerve-wracking process because neither of you can possibly know what

I don't think so. A negotiation of pay for services involves only the final drop-dead figure for what you are willing to work for, and the final drop-dead figure for what the client is willing to pay.

How do you even know what the first figure you quote should be. Do you just think of a random number and quote. You would research and find out how much the others make. If 'the others' you ask are not allowed to tell you what they make, then how else can even you even come up with a number the client will not find outrageous. For example if I quote a million dollars an year for a junior programmer, I am pretty sure the client will not even want to submit a counter quote and just leave laughing.

Private contracts can not overrule the consumer or employee-protection laws. So ruled a judge when he threw-out most of Paypal's user contract (which claimed they had the right to freeze access to your money for six months and, at their sole discretion, close your account & keep the cash).

Just because you sign a contract does not mean you sign-away your rights as protected by law. It sounds like your Employment contract violates the law which allows employees freedom to talk to one another about work conditions/pay.

There's nothing unethical about that at all. A contract is a two way agreement. They have to agree and so do I. So long as both parties agree, what's the issue?

The issue , and reason it's unethical is that there's an uneven balance of power. Hardly any employer has gone bankrupt due to employees leaving as a result of poor treatment (rather than them fucking up and running out of money), while people that don't put up with bullshit are running a solid risk of ending in the streets. The employee is replaceable , and hence, can't really set the conditions, unless he's in a highly skilled, and rare position of expertise. Which is why unions are such an awesome thing - they allow the employees to actually form a credible threat to whoever's screwing them over.

A contract is only a two-way agreement when both sides have equal bargaining power.

When one side holds all the cards and is in a position to dictate terms, it is very much a one way take it or leave it agreement usually riddled with the company getting all rights and you getting none.

And in an economy where people are desperate for jobs and willing to sell their souls to the lowest bidder, the boss will win.

I have no idea in what industry you work in or kind of employment you have, but I can tell you that in professional industries (IT, software development, hardware, engineering, consulting, medical, science, business), it is HIGHLY TABOO to disclose your salary to other employees, let alone ask them what their salary was. The only exception to this is a union-type environment where everyone knows everyone else's salary de-facto. But if you aren't in a union, the #1 rule in fight club is that you do not talk

Of course it is. That's hundreds of years of cultural integration of employers demanding to have salary negotiations kept secret. It's always in the worker's interest for these negotiation to be public and always in the employer's interest to have them secret. So, your statement boils down to "It's always been like this". That's not new information. What is new is that a labor board has now stated that it's your right to discuss this information and it's illegal to prevent this discussion.

This is a step forward in a better direction than labor unions. The problem I've always had with Unions is that you need to sign on with a slightly less abusive group to protect you from a more abusive group, you don't get to go your own way. Requiring open discussions of labor conditions is a step closer to a transparent labor market and more fair wages.

I work in IT. I have no problem disclosing my salary to someone else, and the only reason I wouldn't ask someone else is because they might prefer that information be private. But in general, there's no reason to avoid discussing compensation from the employee's perspective. It is a culture employers encourage because it gives them a massive advantage, but there's not actually anything wrong or impolite about it.

I work for an engineering / science firm that does a lot of small contracts with billable hours. Most of the technical employees manage a contract or two. We need to know hourly salaries at proposal time to bid hours and determine budgets, and if anyone charges to the contract (peers, management, etc.) the person managing the contract can determine the salary.

No it isn't, but congratulations on not only drinking the Kool-Aid, but preaching it. What people in my industry make is quite literally my business.

In your industry, sure. In the company you work for? Not so much. What I earn is between myself and my clients. I wouldn't dare ask someone how much they earned unless I was very friendly with them - it's none of my business. That holds true whether they supply services to the same company I do or not.

When my contract comes due I look at a few source for determining how much I want to get paid. This includes inflation, my position in the company, the market rate for my services and most importantly what I k

ACtually I did read it; and an important point is the *reason* he's saying it's unlawful. He is not saying employers may not restrict the kinds of information that employees publish; only that they must be specific.

"Rules that are ambiguous as to their application to Section 7 activity, and contain no limiting language or context that would clarify to employees that the rule does not restrict Section 7 rights, are unlawful"

And in this case, it all hung on the rather loosely defined term "confidential information". He found that because of the lack of definition, that term could be considered to include conditions of employment.

Had they been more specific in excluding trade secrets, that would have been permissib

The company I work for actually classifies data in that some data is labeled "confidential." The word "confidential" is not necessarily ambiguous, but rather refers to all company information labeled "confidential." Most companies that have policies regarding confidential data quite explicitly define it.

One of the messages of the latest NLRB memo is to avoid ambiguous language in social media policies and spell out situations to avoid, said Mayer Brown's Goodman...The NLRB seems to be on a "journey" to address social media in the workplace, Goodman said. The three memos, which don't lay out specific rules, may be confusing to many companies, she added.

NLRB kinda sorta said what companies might should do; e.g. Don't be ambiguous. but they didn't exactly say how. Good work guys.

Actually, the NLRB was very specific. The entire point of the meme was to inform companies that their overly broad scial media policies would make a reasonable person believe they could not discuss their salary or working conditions. That's specifically against the law - a law he repeatedly sites in the memo.
The easy way around the issue is to include repeated disclaimers that no part of this policy will in any way restrict the employee's rights to discuss their salary or work conditions. But they don'

NLRB kinda sorta said what companies might should do; e.g. Don't be ambiguous. but they didn't exactly say how. Good work guys.

Sometimes you need to use a LITTLE imagination. They said that it was unlawful because it didn't except the Section 7 rights. If they had given a definition of "confidential information" that excepted Section 7 rights, that would have been fine.
Even better would be to prominently display the workers' rights under Section 7 at the beginning of the policy manual AND specifically except it from the definition of "confidential information."

I mean, it's my understanding that an employer can terminate an employee for almost any reason imaginable, or no reason at all... and if none is given, wouldn't the onus fall on the employee to prove that the actual reason was one that is illegal?

"I mean, it's my understanding that an employer can terminate an employee for almost any reason imaginable, or no reason at all... and if none is given, wouldn't the onus fall on the employee to prove that the actual reason was one that is illegal?"

Yes. True. And it's hard to prove. But if they don't disclose the reason, then you get your unemployment benefits. If they disclose the reason and it's not that you committed an actual crime, then you get your benefits. If they disclose the reason and it's on the

Yes, that's generally the case. On an "at will" contract, you can be terminated for any reason that isn't explictily illegal. If the employer believes they were fired for an illegal reason, they have to make the case. The assumption is that terminations are for legal reasons absent evidenct to the contrary.

That's my point... so I don't get why the US bothers to try to make laws like this that are only certain to be found inconvenient by some employers... when those same employers can just fire the employees anyways, and not give any reason for dismissal.

Which partially explains why minorities suffer the most in times of economic uncertainty. If I need five more people right now, but conditions are such that I am not sure that I can keep them on in six months, I am better off hiring a white, healthy heterosexual male. Because if I hire a member of a minority and have to let them go in six months, there is a significant risk that they will file an EEO complaint against me (which will cost me a significant amount of money to defend against, even if it is base

Employees could quit for any or no reason anyways... even without "at will employment", owing to laws prohibiting slavery. The employer simply has no contractual obligation to someone who quits without notice outside of pay for work already completed.

While it's true that the employer is not required to give a reason there always is one. Because i wanted to, is a reason. Now if the employee files suit and their lawyer asks why they were fired, no judge in the world will accept "no reason" as an answer. There is always a reason.

Also note just because a firing isn't illegal doesn't mean it's not actionable.

A corporation exists to make money, specifically profit. It wants to control all things that impact that result. Controlling information about employees, from employees, gives them an edge in the making of profit. Some of the thing a corporation might want to do, or assumes it can do to or with employees, is in fact illegal and they can't actually do those things. However, most large corporations also know that they can induce their employees to tow their corporate line with sanctions that while are perhaps

it'd be relatively safe discussing compensation with coworkers when employees work under the same contract (e.g. union shop) or the wage scales are public knowledge (e.g. public sector jobs) and are adhered to.. BUT in other instances, it can be a very dangerous topic of discussion... you don't really want to be on either end of it where there is a significant discrepancy in pay, as it will rarely end well.

and regardless of the legality of employers retaliating or discriminatin

Employers don't want you to discuss with your co-workers what your pay and benefits packages are, because they offer sweet deals to people they like, and that favoritism is not always above board.

If other employees knew that billybob the janitor was getting paid three times what they were, they would demand to know why, ad worse, demand better pay. Usually billybob gets that sweet reimbursement for his labor because of some dirty secret, like he's the boss's lover, brother, illegitimate son, whatever. All of which are clearly outright illegal.

Keeping people ignorant let's you get away with abuses of power. That's why they penalise people who share their information.

That's why I always laugh whenever people complain about the salaries janitors and garbagemen make. There's a reason they need to offer those salaries, and those that do the job usually earn what they make.

The more someone knows what others are being paid, the more he knows about what the employer is truly willing to pay someone for that work. In salary negotiations, information is power. So employers try to scare employees away from gathering that kind of info.

Also, when people know each other's salaries, it tends to make people discontent, when they'd previously been happy. Everyone wants to make more than everyone else. When people don't know each other's salaries, they're generally happy if they think they're making market rate. Want a recipe for a nasty workplace? Negotiate different salaries for each employee, and then let them all know who's making what.

Hard set pay grades, openly state where the figures come from, let people walk if they demand more pay.

Not everyone is a throat slitting MFer. As an employer who wants quality employees, employees that want to bleed me dry because they feel special, but really aren't, are not a commodity I want to keep anyway

As an employer who wants quality employees, employees that want to bleed me dry because they feel special, but really aren't, are not a commodity I want to keep anyway. (I am not actually an employer, but that's how I view the situation.)

With all due respect, I imagine you will/would have a different perspective on the issue if/when you are an employer.

Business is a cuthroat enterprise. As such, there is a clear, and present advantage to shafting employees and keeping them ignorant with information control. If you can pay your people peanuts and get away with it, why on earth would you ever want them to know that they are getting shafted? Profit man! Profit! Its why you started the business!

The difference is that I am not a bloodthirsty, elitist bastard MFer that wants a free lunch, and more shockingly, I don't feel I am entitled to one, and feel I should be paid according to a fair and equitable standard.

This is because I am a fair and equitable person.

As pointed out in the grandparent, the real reason for these information control polices is exactly antithetical to that viewpoint. Claiming it results in a more harmonious workplace when people don't know about the bullshit is a no brainer. Nobody wants to put up with bullshit.

The problem is that the bullshit is so endemic, that its business as usual, and people are perfecty happy to cause the bullshit, as long as they are the beneficiary. That's basically your argument.

Mine is that the bullshit shouldn't be tolerated period, because it causes so many headaches.

I think the fundamental issue you'll run into, when trying to apply the ethical standard you describe, is determining what a "fair" market price is for someone's labor.

I don't think you'll find a single, undeniably superior way of reckoning what it should be.

I accept your challenge. Determining fair market price when all buyers and sellers have information on all current transactions is undeniable more accurate and predictable than determining fair market price when the price of all transactions is a carefully guarded secret.

I agree with what you're saying but, as a manager, I have another issue that cannot be solved with completely transparent transactions (even if that was possible):

Salary rates are set by what the market will pay. When demand goes up, candidates know to ask for more. I'm desperate to hire now, which means either I ask my team to keep working 50/60 hr weeks, or I hire another person for (10-20%) more than what my current team (of equivalent experience) makes. Of course, I cannot simply raise everyone to this new level because I barely have the budget to hire this new person at a normal rate, much less this inflated rate. So, either I keep people in the dark and relatively happy, or I tell people what's up (they know anyway), and now they leave for greener pastures. Yes we can have talks about things that will happen "one day" but I can't promise anything I can't deliver, and right now I have no clue how the market will turn. Everyone wants to make more money when the market is great, no one wants to cut their paycheck when it dips.

With perfect information, I am at the mercy of the hiring market (bubble?), and my operating budget climbs while I don't necessarily get any more productivity (per person) with an increase salaries paid. Sure, I can look elsewhere to save money too, but I don't want to be the PHB that cuts the free coffee and tea so I can raise only one guy up to the market rate. Or do I?

I agree with what you're saying but, as a manager, I have another issue that cannot be solved with completely transparent transactions (even if that was possible):

Salary rates are set by what the market will pay. When demand goes up, candidates know to ask for more. I'm desperate to hire now, which means either I ask my team to keep working 50/60 hr weeks, or I hire another person for (10-20%) more than what my current team (of equivalent experience) makes. Of course, I cannot simply raise everyone to this new level because I barely have the budget to hire this new person at a normal rate, much less this inflated rate. So, either I keep people in the dark and relatively happy, or I tell people what's up (they know anyway), and now they leave for greener pastures. Yes we can have talks about things that will happen "one day" but I can't promise anything I can't deliver, and right now I have no clue how the market will turn. Everyone wants to make more money when the market is great, no one wants to cut their paycheck when it dips.

With perfect information, I am at the mercy of the hiring market (bubble?), and my operating budget climbs while I don't necessarily get any more productivity (per person) with an increase salaries paid. Sure, I can look elsewhere to save money too, but I don't want to be the PHB that cuts the free coffee and tea so I can raise only one guy up to the market rate. Or do I?

So in other words, you've been underpaying your employees for years and now its coming back to bite you in the ass. I'd leave your team too.

I would evaluate the value of my company's product or service in the market at large. This is the starting point. How much is that service actually worth, as determined by the market. Don't cook this number because you think you are awesome. Use the domestic figure.

Now, subtract 10% from that value. Always make your projections conservative, because "shit fucking happens." Better to constantly report a windfall, than to appear to suffer economic adversity.

Itemize the costs to provide that service. This includes the costs your employees have in order to reach your requirements for hire. (Education costs, etc.) Completely ignore what industry pay rates are at this point. We are determining equity, not the status quo.

State a corporate growth goal. How much profit do you need to make to reach that goal? Write this number down. This number should be sensible, not some absurd value like 100%. 5 to 10% is "high". Be conservative. Aim to break this goal with voracious abandon if possible, but don't set impossible goals.

Using the numbers you now have, honestly evaluate how many people you will need to reach the necessary output required to meet your growth target, and of what types and disciplines. Employees of different disciplines have different intrinsic costs for them to be hirable. Adjust their basic equity pay accordingly. You should give each employee around 1000 to 2000 dollars a month free spending money in your projection. Include food and fuel costs, education costs, and the costs of 2.5 children and a spouse. A lawyer needs to be paid more, because they spend more time in the university than an accountant. After the bills are added up, they should be treated the same in terms of their disposable income.

(The hard part) set your pay scale to the same value system.

*NOW* compare your equitable rates against industry standard rates.

Prioritize the actual value in your company each type of employee actually has. How many janitors does it really take to keep the premesis clean? Etc. Where there is a disproportionately high industry standard wage compared to actual employment costs, seek to eliminate positions in the labor pool so that reaching industry pay rate parity does not extensively increase your projected labor budget. This means cutting management positions. Strictly evaluate just how many meetings people really need to attend, how many bosses production staff actually require to work efficiently, and then use this as gospel. Allow the 10% cut on projected value of service make up the slack that can't be ironed out. (But always check your numbers!)

Take all this nice information you collected and digested, and turn it into a nice, bright little flier. When people drop an application, give them a copy of it, and discuss its contents, and why you adhere to it like gospel. Let them know that every 10 years, you hold an audit of the payscale, and adjust it honestly and with integrity. If the position they are applying for will get paid way more than industry standard, make sure they understand exactly why you are paying them more. If the position they are applying for is clearly overpaid in terms of standard compensation by this metric, let them know exactly why you are exceptionally picky about who you will hire, and that the limits on management salaries are fixed. Openly share your own salary to drive the point home. No exceptions. If they don't want the job, don't hire them.

The CEO's and board's pay are given additional constraints, such that their rate of statistical overpayment shall never exceed 100% of the standard takehome value. If this means legal gets paid more, too fucking bad.

This information would be available publicly, along with the quarterly finance reports. This includes the conclusions about statistical over and underpayments against industry

Overall you have given a pretty good lay out of an equitable pay scale. There are a couple of problems with it, although they could all probably be ironed out. The first one is that, if I am understanding what you wrote, you are figuring on paying each employee between $12,000 and $24,000 a year over of discretionary spending money ($1,000-$2,000 a month). I have worked for companies that did not have the profit margins to pay that much to the number of employees they had to have to operate (especially when

The 1000 to 2000 figure was given for dense population centers where prices of goods are artificially inflated by distribution costs. The luxury goods they buy will be more expensive than somebody in a less dense area. This is a failure of the approach, I openly admit, since it implies a dense urban environment.

A better metric for disposable income would be price check many common luxury goods in the local market, and allot a disposable income that would allow purchase of the most common ones, and still l

Why on earth would someone spend the effort to be a lawyer if they just get paid the same? How do you think exceptional employees would feel about carrying everyone else like that? Everyone's going to be HAPPY to be a carbon copy cog in the great machine? If everyone has the same disposable incomes... people would be fighting for the easy jobs. The unhappiness has only moved from feeling taken advantage of due to differences in wages to feeling taken advantage of due to the vast differences in job difficulty across the entire company's payroll for the same disposable income. Now, instead of occasionally remembering the injustice every paycheck or two... you're constantly reminded of the inequity of your workload vs. others. It'd be miserable.

This is literal communism... like, on a real commune. It 'works' on a commune because there's no real product besides the group survival (unless they're led by morally bankrupt a-holes who are taking advantage of the naive, which seems to happen a lot) and virtually all of the work is unskilled and interchangable. They usually regularly rotate positions and find ways to punish people who aren't pulling their weight.

You're valuing the COMPANY product according to market rates, but you're completely disregarding the individual skills and product of the employees. You can't combine those, they're not compatible.

A person, like a company, has a product or a set of products. How valuable the product is to others should be reflected somehow in how that person is paid. Personally, I'd rather have the assembly line guy who works twice as fast get paid twice as much. The sales guy who can sell twice as much should be paid twice as much. However, I recognize that this would put too much pressure on the average person... so a system much like we currently have where the compensation for performance is much more gradual is fine by me. The extreme performers can go their own way if they want to do better.

I do wish that pay for different jobs could be somehow magically rebalanced according to the actual worth of what the person does for society, though. Not 1:1, though... probably something like "1 + ln(relative_societal_value)".

Why on earth would someone spend the effort to be a lawyer if they just get paid the same? How do you think exceptional employees would feel about carrying everyone else like that? Everyone's going to be HAPPY to be a carbon copy cog in the great machine? If everyone has the same disposable incomes... people would be fighting for the easy jobs. The unhappiness has only moved from feeling taken advantage of due to differences in wages to feeling taken advantage of due to the vast differences in job difficulty across the entire company's payroll for the same disposable income. )".

Maybe, if pay was the same, people would actually be able to focus on doing the jobs that they ENJOY, instead of feeling like they had to take a different position to afford to eat. This has the added benefit of the fact that people who are doing jobs they enjoy/care about tend to do better at those jobs and try harder, so the company better results as well. Bottom line, some people enjoy the work of lawyers, they would still go through the trouble to become lawters. Other people enjoy managing, they wo

I've done the academic part of becoming a lawyer in the UK, and from my point of view money wasn't the big motivator for me. To be fair, I'm lucky enough to have the personal means to fund this as kind of a "hobby".

I have to say the work that the average lawyer does is pretty mundane - even for a barrister most of the workload is far from interesting - remember that the money is in commercial matters. I can see why you need to pay them lots of money - the enjoyment you get from doing the work is next to non

Business is a cuthroat enterprise. As such, there is a clear, and present advantage to shafting employees and keeping them ignorant with information control. If you can pay your people peanuts and get away with it, why on earth would you ever want them to know that they are getting shafted? Profit man! Profit! Its why you started the business!

Maybe you started the business because you wanted a good job and couldn't find anyone hiring?

There are people who don't believe a transaction is successful for them unless it hurts the other party. These people are never trying to establish long-term business relationships based on mutual success or respect. While some of these people may stay in business, I imagine they live their lives full of anger and high blood pressure. Meanwhile, I don't think they're actually doing any better than nice people, be

Business is a cuthroat enterprise. As such, there is a clear, and present advantage to shafting employees and keeping them ignorant with information control. If you can pay your people peanuts and get away with it, why on earth would you ever want them to know that they are getting shafted? Profit man! Profit! Its why you started the business!

I take it you've never actually run a business. Unless you're running a mundane manual labor business (assembly line work, fruit picking, etc), employees are not expenses. They are the lifeblood of the company. You need their creativity and vitality for the company to prosper, because the employees are the company. Without the employees the company dies. Without the company, the employees can just start up another company doing what they were doing at the old company. If I didn't need the employees, I wouldn't have hired them in the first place.

People often poke fun of the government for awarding contracts to the lowest bidder. The private businesses I've been involved with and helped run didn't/don't do that. We recognized that the higher priced item can actually represent a better value. The same goes for employees. What's crucial is the value the employee offers - productivity per dollar of salary, not lowest salary. I've never had a problem with employees talking with each other about salary (and in many other countries it's not taboo like it is here). I've had to keep pretty good tabs on each employee's contributions and shortcomings for figuring out bonuses. If one of them comes to me complaining about his/her pay, I have a pretty detailed list of reasons why they're being paid what they are, and what they could do to improve their prospects of a raise. In fact if it weren't taboo here, often I'd like to be able to talk with them about it openly to encourage the underperformers to do better. "If you could do this, this, and this better, we could pay you better like we do Joe."

A company trying to prevent its employees from talking with each other about salary is a sign of a failing company IMHO. They're hemorrhaging cash so are desperately trying to cut as many expenses as they can, even if they end up cutting off meat along with the fat. If your company is trying to foist that upon you, I'd suggest either brushing off the resume or learning some skills so you're no longer a mundane manual laborer.

I take it you've never actually run a business. Unless you're running a mundane manual labor business (assembly line work, fruit picking, etc), employees are not expenses. They are the lifeblood of the company. You need their creativity and vitality for the company to prosper, because the employees are the company. Without the employees the company dies.

Would I be subject to compensating someone higher than another due to favoritism? Hell, yes! What's important is what that favoritism is based upon, though. I don't believe in accepting (e.g.) sexual favors, but if you're a good contributor who makes my life easier, you're likely to be my favorite, and I'm likely to want to pay you more.

As much as we despise HR, their control over salaries helps mitigate a lot of favoritism issues.

My mom was running a successful business for 15 years with about 25 employees where everyone knew each other's salary. Didn't cause any troubles. But then people doing the same job were paid the same, too (performance bonuses were separate from that). And people did just fine recognizing that some jobs pay more than others.

I am a manager and I agree with that. The valuable employees are not the ones who grouse about their pay or even worry much about it... because they're getting paid well. If I'm not happy with your work, you won't get a raise from me. Instead I'll be telling you what you need to fix to come up to snuff. But all my employees also get complimented when they do things right and rewards when they do them better than par.

My wife just negotiated working from home prior to being hired full-time at a very conservative (read old) company. She'd been a contractor with them for the past year, and worked from home then, but they don't let any full-time employees work from home. Except her, so far as we know. Why? It was really important to her and she was willing to walk if she didn't get it, and they knew she could have a new job in less than a day in this market for her position.

Is that favoritism? I really doubt they favor her more than their existing employees. It's just what mattered to her. She didn't push on the salary or the hours or the responsibilities, either, just the work location.

The agreement between employer and employee is a free-market deal, just the same as between the company and customer. I think employers that share your attitude that employees should accept what crumbs you give them (a.k.a. "bleed me dry" from the opposite perspective) find themselves out of business shortly, or using a revolving cast of unskilled workers that can never do the job right for their pay.

The thing is though, each individual employee is different and each employee should really be paid according to their individual actions. It doesn't make sense to pay all people who's title is X, $Y if their abilities and talents differ. Some people are much more skilled and can get a lot more work done, or much higher quality of work done in an hour so of course they should be paid higher than those who do less, even if the job description is the same.

Also, when people know each other's salaries, it tends to make people discontent, when they'd previously been happy. Everyone wants to make more than everyone else. When people don't know each other's salaries, they're generally happy if they think they're making market rate. Want a recipe for a nasty workplace? Negotiate different salaries for each employee, and then let them all know who's making what.

If the employees are paid differently, there need to be visible reasons why, like qualifications, recognized quality of work, higher productivity, etc. When pay is perceived as FAIR, it doesn't cause resentment and in fact reinforces the motivations that you want in your employees. You want to be paid like Molly? Then turn out quality and quantity of work that match what Molly does.

If other employees knew that billybob the janitor was getting paid three times what they were, they would demand to know why, ad worse, demand better pay. Usually billybob gets that sweet reimbursement for his labor because of some dirty secret, like he's the boss's lover, brother, illegitimate son, whatever. All of which are clearly outright illegal.

The brother and the illegitimate son are not in any way illegal. You can employ family members and pay them whatever you deem appropriate, at least in privately held businesses. The lover is questionable. The lover thing is a (dark) gray area because it can create a discriminatory working environment and *that* is illegal.

Keeping people ignorant let's you get away with abuses of power. That's why they penalise people who share their information.

The brother and the illegitimate son are not in any way illegal. You can employ family members and pay them whatever you deem appropriate, at least in privately held businesses. The lover is questionable. The lover thing is a (dark) gray area because it can create a discriminatory working environment and *that* is illegal.

And you don't think the brother is discriminating in favor of family and against all others in the workplace? You think lover is a magic category? I'm just asking. I don't know the ans

The brother and the illegitimate son are not in any way illegal. You can employ family members and pay them whatever you deem appropriate, at least in privately held businesses. The lover is questionable. The lover thing is a (dark) gray area because it can create a discriminatory working environment and *that* is illegal.

And you don't think the brother is discriminating in favor of family and against all others in the workplace? You think lover is a magic category? I'm just asking. I don't know the answer. I don't know where the line is drawn. I just know that when you do start drawing lines of what is and what isn't discrimination, you are building a smug sense of entitlement in some and discontent in others.

But there are plenty of businesses that make no bones about being family businesses. In a family business, nepotism is the norm and expected and you don't expect to get an equal shot with the boss's brother or son.

Generally the bad employees will bitch and demand "equal pay" for "equal work", when they don't actually provide equal work. In 2 of my last companies I knew exactly how much everyone made, and if some people found out I can guarantee you there would be some very unhappy employees even though they were getting paid much more they were worth.

I've also seen cases where a husband and wife were working at the same company and they were fairly close in pay, even though one of them wasn't in a position that shou

I also don't want my coworkers knowing what I make because they will likely try demanding more than they are making when they don't deserve it. They aren't nearly as good... People have an incorrect valuation of their own skills and contribution the vast majority of the time.

Because your employer doesn't want you talking to your co-workers outside of their control, because that could lead to workers organizing, which we all know is worse, circa 2012, than genocide or child-rape.

But rest assured, Mitt Romney, (aka Ronald II) has promised to do away with the National Labor Relations Board (seriously), because in a free market such things just aren't necessary because everyone knows that once you just free private industry from the constraints of onerous federal regulations against things like, say, killing your workers, employers will start treating their employees really really well. Just as it happened back in the 1880s, the golden age of employer-employee relations.

Oh, and tax cuts for them that deserve them. Because the rich will work harder if they are given more, but the rest of you will work harder if you are given less.

If only we'd known that getting rid of the EPA, the Department of Education, the National Labor Relations Board and NPR would lead to utopia, we'd have done it long ago. Oh, and Planned Parenthood, because women have to stop being such sluts.

Reagan was willing to raise taxes, to work with Tip O'Neal to hammer out agreements and then stick to those agreements, and to use deficits to increase government hiring during an economic crisis. With a record like that, there's no way Reagan could have won the nomination for president in 2012. Although Reagan could have probably beaten that (by modern GOP standards) pinko Richard Nixon or that clearly socialist Dwight Eisenhower.

Mitt Romney is just yet another sleazebag politician out for more money and power. If he's for getting rid of the NLRB, it's not out of any ideology, but because he thinks his stock holdings will do better without the fear of workers doing silly things like wanting to be paid enough to eat.

I am sure all the "job creator" corporate executives who constantly bemoan any and all government regulations claiming they interfere with the "free market" will certainly oppose this kind of transparency. However, a common knowledge of market prices forms the very basis of free markets!!! I personally wish the IRS would publish personal income data for all US citizens. Then we would see real market competition, people striving to find where the money is going and attempting to compete for those positions. If an employer is over or under compensating an employee they should certainly be able to market a rational reason for their action. As the saying goes, "Knowledge is Power" and those in the labor consumer role will do whatever they are legally allowed to do enhance their bargaining power.

The thing that concerns me about proposals such as this is that they are usually a smokescreen for a "new" form of government that is actually worse than existing government. Either that, or they are the hopelessly naive rantings of someone who doesn't really know what's wrong but has some big ideas about how to fix it.

Ultimately the problem comes down to a lack of ownership, accountability, and responsibility. In society today, most of what's out there is owned by a relatively small number of people who ar